Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:17 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Non-religious Theism
#1
Non-religious Theism
It appears to me that there are quite a few individuals on this site and in the larger world that might fall into the category that I would identify as non-religious theism. I think that one comes to such a position through rational thinking, just as Aristotle did when he posited the Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover in the 12th book of his Metaphysics. And though the 13th century Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas, was certainly a very religious theist, he found it quite helpful to build his Five Proofs for the existence of God upon this non-religious theistic foundation in his Summa Theologica.
I should like to open this thread with the hope of finding both like-minded individuals who could comment sympathetically on the subject of non-religious theism and opposite-minded thinkers who could offer logical reasons for not coming to a position like non-religious theism in order to explain the origin of the universe.
I welcome then anyone who could argue successfully that the known universe with all its inherent order and wisdom could possibly have come into existence without a Prime Mover. Let it be known that I do not in any way claim to know what the nature of such a Prime Mover is beyond the obvious logical conclusion that such a being is self-contained.
Furthermore, I would like to ask what people think of the imagination of a world that was fuller of non-religious theists than religious theists as opposed to the imagination of a world that was fuller of non-religious theists than atheists. Perhaps this question seems meaningless to some but I would argue that there is indeed an important difference between a group of people who carry in their minds the idea of a world that started willfully and a group of people who have no such idea or imagination.
Reply
#2
RE: Non-religious Theism
On the surface I typically don't take great issue with deists since deists argue for a an agent responsible for the Big Bang and I suspend judgement. With that as the only difference we can get on with trying to make things a little better for humanity without the chains of doctrine and superstition.

My philosophical disagreements with the prime mover argument is that it doesn't explain anything, adds an entity that isn't necessarily needed, and raises more questions. Even if I assume a prime mover there is no way of knowing that the prime mover was directly responsible for the Big Bang; perhaps the prime mover is further back in the causal chain. How did the prime mover cause the Big Bang? Does the prime mover create other universes? Does the prime mover do anything else?

You're new here. Just wanted to let you know that a moderator will likely move this thread. This specific forum is typically reserved for items pertaining to operation of af.org.
Reply
#3
RE: Non-religious Theism
Cato- "My philosophical disagreements with the prime mover argument is that it doesn't explain anything, adds an entity that isn't necessarily needed, and raises more questions. Even if I assume a prime mover there is no way of knowing that the prime mover was directly responsible for the Big Bang; perhaps the prime mover is further back in the causal chain. How did the prime mover cause the Big Bang? Does the prime mover create other universes? Does the prime mover do anything else?"

Thank you, Cato, for addressing me and not rejecting me outright because we may have differing views. Your actions are worthy of your esteemed name.
You say that positing a Prime Mover doesn't explain anything but I don't understand why you say that. Positing a unmoved mover does indeed explain exactly how the universe could have come into existence. Conversely, not having recourse to such a self-contained agent leaves one asking the obvious question, "What caused the singularity to explode at the moment of the Big Bang?" or "Why did the singularity not simply remain a singularity?"
As for the proximity of the Prime Mover to the event we all now calling the Big Bang, I don't see a problem as long as whatever chain of events or causes one may observe or posit have their eventual origin at the first movement of the Prime Mover. As for answering the question whether the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, I would have to say yes if one assumes that the explosion of the singularity is the initial origin of the universe. If one posits that the Big Bang is just one in a myriad of such cosmic events, it still is logical to assume that there was an initial, prime event and that the Prime Mover would have been responsible for that event.
As for the possibilities of multiple parallel universes, I certainly don't know if such places exist, but if they do, they too will have had an origin and thus a need for the Prime Mover argument.
Dear Cato, what argument do you offer in place of a Prime Mover scenario? And again, why do you say that it is not necessary to have such an agent for the origin of the universe?
Reply
#4
RE: Non-religious Theism
(April 21, 2014 at 10:33 am)Metalogos Wrote: You say that positing a Prime Mover doesn't explain anything but I don't understand why you say that. Positing a unmoved mover does indeed explain exactly how the universe could have come into existence.

No it doesn't. You are just saying that there is a suspect for whoever built the universe.

How was that house built?
"Bill did it"
Does in no way answer the question "how was the house built".
What you've done there is answer the question you wanted to answer rather than the question that was asked.

Quote:Conversely, not having recourse to such a self-contained agent leaves one asking the obvious question, "What caused the singularity to explode at the moment of the Big Bang?" or "Why did the singularity not simply remain a singularity?"

We don't know and neither do you because our current knowledge of the way things work break down at that point.

So you can posit anything at that point but that does not make it any more than a wild guess.

Quote:
As for the proximity of the Prime Mover to the event we all now calling the Big Bang, I don't see a problem as long as whatever chain of events or causes one may observe or posit have their eventual origin at the first movement of the Prime Mover. As for answering the question whether the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, I would have to say yes if one assumes that the explosion of the singularity is the initial origin of the universe.

Could have been caused by a lot of things.

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php...1614548752

Quote: If one posits that the Big Bang is just one in a myriad of such cosmic events, it still is logical to assume that there was an initial, prime event and that the Prime Mover would have been responsible for that event.
As for the possibilities of multiple parallel universes, I certainly don't know if such places exist, but if they do, they too will have had an origin and thus a need for the Prime Mover argument.

So you can move your unproven speculation further and further back as required so you can feel comfortable with your delusion.
Nice.

Quote:Dear Cato, what argument do you offer in place of a Prime Mover scenario? And again, why do you say that it is not necessary to have such an agent for the origin of the universe?

Quote:What caused it all?: Perhaps quantum fluctuations. Perhaps some prior state. However it happened, the laws of physics made it happen.
And we come quickly to why: Why did our universe begin? Why the laws of physics? Sometimes only silence … gets us closer to truth.

http://www.closertotruth.com/blog-entry/...ginning-/5



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#5
RE: Non-religious Theism
When we ask questions about the world around us and attempt to answer them, most times we are limited by our knowledge of the workings of things and their true nature. We conjecture, we create hypotheses, and in the modern way of thinking, we try to test our hypotheses using the scientific method. When asking questions about the origin of the universe, all is conjecture and hypothesis. There is no certainty. Please do not misunderstand me, fellow thinker, for I love sophia as much as you. And it is just because I do that I am not content to leave untouched a fundamental question that all thinkers, past and present, eventually come to: From whence came the world and the stars and all that about me swirls? Yes, silence is indeed a good place to start from and return to when the mind seeks such lofty heights. And yes, I will certainly never know the ultimate truth but that does not stop me from endeavor ing in the most noble action that our kind has the possibility of engaging in, namely thinking and contemplating about our own existence. Thank you for engaging me in this excellent pursuit.

By the way, the questions, "What is the origin of the universe?" and "How was the universe made?" are not the same. I think the question under discussion is the former. If you, dear DBP, wish to discuss the How question, then we will most certainly come to very similar answers as I don't take you for a special creationist type. Indeed then, attempting to answer a How question with an answer that a particular agent is responsible is not adequate. The questioner wants methods, procedures, discriptions of chains of causes and effects. Clearly, this is not a "whodunit" type of question. On the other hand, when asking, "From whence came the universe?" or "What is its origin?" an answer that posits a creator being is not out of line. It may prove eventually to be true or false but it does fit the nature of the question. Okay?
Reply
#6
RE: Non-religious Theism
I find several things wrong with the prime mover argument.

Firstly, as someone that subscribes to philosophical skepticism, I think pure reasoning without empirical evidence is fruitless and leads us no closer to the truth.

Secondly, the prime mover argument fails as a hypothesis due to its lack of explanatory and predictive power. We gain no further understanding from it, as all it seeks to do is justify the existence of the prime mover without showing what consequences that would have on reality or what we should expect to see because of that.

Thirdly, there seems to be absolutely no support that the "first cause" of the universe should necessarily be a conscious being. Its supporters just try to sneak that in with arguments that boil down to nothing more than "I think it's a sentient entity, because I think the universe had to have been designed by something sentient."

The prime mover argument appears to be nothing more than people attempting to justify preconceived beliefs, rather than build a philosophically valid worldview from the ground up.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#7
RE: Non-religious Theism
(April 21, 2014 at 9:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I find several things wrong with the prime mover argument.

Firstly, as someone that subscribes to philosophical skepticism, I think pure reasoning without empirical evidence is fruitless and leads us no closer to the truth.

Secondly, the prime mover argument fails as a hypothesis due to its lack of explanatory and predictive power. We gain no further understanding from it, as all it seeks to do is justify the existence of the prime mover without showing what consequences that would have on reality or what we should expect to see because of that.

Thirdly, there seems to be absolutely no support that the "first cause" of the universe should necessarily be a conscious being. Its supporters just try to sneak that in with arguments that boil down to nothing more than "I think it's a sentient entity, because I think the universe had to have been designed by something sentient."

The prime mover argument appears to be nothing more than people attempting to justify preconceived beliefs, rather than build a philosophically valid worldview from the ground up.

To answer the first objection about the fruitlessness of engaging in pure reasoning without having any kind of empirical evidence to support such reasoning, in general, I would agree with you. On the other hand, I do not regard thinking about the origins of the universe to be an act of pure reasoning. On the contrary, it is a very natural, everyday kind of thinking that leads one to ask, "Where did all this stuff come from?" or "What caused all of this stuff to exist in the way that it exists?" It is just wanting to know and understand the very real world around us that has lead to all the scientific discoveries that underpin our modern societies and without which we would find life very difficult to lead.

In rebuttal to the second objection about the lack of explanatory or predictive power in the prime mover argument, I would say that it is just this argument that does indeed explain the very important and fundamental question of how things got started in this universe.
Empirical evidence shows that everything is in motion. A very natural question is "What set things in motion?" Empirical evidence shows that everything that moves has had an action performed on it by a preceding agent. True in the macrocosm. True in the microcosm. If everything requires a preceding agent to set it into motion, logically, there must have been a moment in time when there was a movement that we can consider the prime movement that was the result of a Prime mover, an initial agent taking that first move.
This is a very logical, natural way to think. It is not a question of metaphysics. It is a question of natural physics. What causes a ball to fly through the air when someone hits it with a bat? There are all kinds of detailed descriptions concerning the physics and mathematics of things in motion we can give as to why the ball moves but they will essentially boil down to an answer like, "Well, when John hit it with his bat, he applied force to the bat that in turn applied force to the ball and since the ball was free to move and had a much smaller mass than the bat, it was propelled through air." Every place we look, we see the world in motion and every time we investigate the cause behind those various instances of things in motion, we discover that there was a preceding cause.

The prime mover argument, the way I would state it, says that since we can see that everything in the universe is in motion and since we know that everything that is in motion has had a preceding cause, there must have been an initial cause, an initial movement.
Movements come about by agents. Not all agents are equal nor are they all sentient beings but considering that the universe displays wisdom and order in all its manifestations, it is logical to conclude that wisdom and order, as opposed to insensible chaos are natural attributes of the initial agent or Prime Mover.
That the eventual effect of the initial movement set in motion by the Prime Mover results, over time, in sentient beings that are capable of self contemplation and selfless love, namely, ourselves, it is certainly natural to think that such attributes could be attributed to the one that set this universe into motion in the first place. Since this initial agent would have to be one that existed, self-contained, before the initial movement that started the universe to come into existence, it would have to be an agent that existed before time or beyond time or eternally. An eternal, self-contained, self aware agent is the kind of being many cultures past and present would call a god or God or a deity or the Deity.
We have therefore, with this argument an explanation for the empirical evidence that everything is in motion and that every motion was begat by a preceding motion regressively until we reach the moment in time when the first motion occurred. We name that now the Big Bang. This argument gives a satisfactory explanation sans detailed descriptions as to why that first motion occurred, namely that the Prime Mover caused it to occur. This argument does have explanatory power.

As for predictive power, well, what kind of predictions would you expect or not expect for it to have? I would expect that it would predict that there would be no movement and therefore no matter prior to the initial movement. I wouldn't expect it to predict what will happen after that first movement. We are not talking about a hypothetical law of nature here so I'm not sure why you bring up this point about predictability. A hypothetical law would need to be able to predict what would happen according to the principles of the law but that is not the case here.

I don't have any preconceived beliefs about this question of origin. I am not religious in any way. My views are open. I would be very willing to change my position from theist to atheist if I was given a rational and plausible alternative argument that would account for the origin of this universe and the accompanying natural laws that we can observe.

I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns, sir. Thank you for your patience and consideration.
Reply
#8
RE: Non-religious Theism
(April 20, 2014 at 8:31 am)Metalogos Wrote: I welcome then anyone who could argue successfully that the known universe with all its inherent order and wisdom could possibly have come into existence without a Prime Mover. Let it be known that I do not in any way claim to know what the nature of such a Prime Mover is beyond the obvious logical conclusion that such a being is self-contained.

Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing" did a fine job of arguing just that.

Oh, and what "wisdom"?
I'm a bitch, I'm a lover
I'm a goddess, I'm a mother
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
Reply
#9
RE: Non-religious Theism
(April 22, 2014 at 7:30 am)Metalogos Wrote: Not all agents are equal nor are they all sentient beings but considering that the universe displays wisdom and order in all its manifestations, it is logical to conclude that wisdom and order, as opposed to insensible chaos are natural attributes of the initial agent or Prime Mover.

Without substantiation, these claims are nothing but baseless assertions. How exactly does the universe display wisdom? I can see no wisdom in the fact that every location in the known universe except for a portion of the surface of our dust ball is totally hostile to our existence. If there was wisdom behind creation, as you claim, it sure as hell didn't have us in mind.

Stating that it is okay to ask where we came from does not refute FNM's position that reasoning should be buttressed with empirical evidence. You were simply evading.

You keep saying you're 'open' regarding your argument; however, you have consistently done nothing more than stick your fingers in your ears, slam your eyes shut, and find ways of repeating yourself as many of us have shown what is wrong with your argument. The cosmological argument has never recovered from Hume. You would already know this if your "noble action" was sincere.

Other explanations that you might seek out are m-theory, parallel universes, or black hole cosmology. I don't think any of them have any great merit and consider them unscientific, because they can't be tested. The main reason I find these intriguing and much more satisfying than your 'God did it' explanation is that they're not fucking boring. The other reason is that they are at least plausible, meaning the proposed mechanisms can be conceived based on our observable cosmology. Shit moves; therefore God pales in comparison.
Reply
#10
RE: Non-religious Theism
(April 22, 2014 at 11:20 am)Cato Wrote: [quote='Metalogos' pid='655152' dateline='1398166250']
Not all agents are equal nor are they all sentient beings but considering that the universe displays wisdom and order in all its manifestations, it is logical to conclude that wisdom and order, as opposed to insensible chaos are natural attributes of the initial agent or Prime Mover.

Cato writes--Without substantiation, these claims are nothing but baseless assertions. How exactly does the universe display wisdom? I can see no wisdom in the fact that every location in the known universe except for a portion of the surface of our dust ball is totally hostile to our existence. If there was wisdom behind creation, as you claim, it sure as hell didn't have us in mind.

My dear Cato, I am speaking here of anything or person that sets another thing or person into action when I use the term 'agent'. I hardly think there is a need to point out all the empirical evidence that there is in the world to show that there are indeed agents that act on objects that result in the object being set into motion.

As far as my claim that there is wisdom and order in the universe, I am speaking of the myriad manifestations of nature that show intelligence, chief amongst those would be you, I'm sure, and a methodical arrangement of elements that result in harmonious entities like human beings, ants, and snowflakes.

Please, I am not arguing here for intelligent design. I'm simply saying there is intelligence and exquisite order in the universe.

I will endeavour to educate myself re the various alternative explanations that you so kindly pointed out to me. Thank you.

As for Mr. Hume and his esteemed work, I am humbled before his dedication to study and understand both human nature and the nature of the world/universe. I think I should like to read his History of England first as that impressive work apparently contains some of his most insightful discoveries on how the human being behaves and thinks.
I am encouraged to find out this concerning his religious/philosophical beliefs:
It is likely that Hume was sceptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Paul Russell suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion".[26] David O'Connor writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity".

I admire the man for being both skeptical and open-minded. I hope to emulate him in my own thinking. Thank you.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism R00tKiT 491 33601 December 25, 2022 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Did Jesus want to create a poli-theism religion? Eclectic 83 5918 December 18, 2022 at 7:54 am
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Can you be a "Non religious muslim"? Woah0 31 1729 August 22, 2022 at 8:22 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Ignosticism, Theism, or Gnostic Atheism vulcanlogician 55 3948 February 1, 2022 at 9:23 pm
Last Post: emjay
  Persistent Non-Symbolic Experiences Ahriman 0 533 August 18, 2021 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: Ahriman
  Questions about the European renaissance and religion to non believers Quill01 6 639 January 31, 2021 at 7:16 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  God as a non-creator Fake Messiah 13 1562 January 21, 2020 at 8:36 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Being can come from non-being Alex K 55 6990 January 15, 2020 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Being cannot come from Non-being Otangelo 147 13144 January 7, 2020 at 7:08 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Rational Theism Foxaèr 17 5229 May 2, 2018 at 9:34 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)